Should the NFL stop drug testing for Marijuana?

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Neither here nor there, but marijuana in high doses can lead to hallucinations. That may or may not be an effect related to other substances laced in...

 

Synthetic marijuana seems to drive people crazy.

 

I'd suspect there would be other substances laced in.  That and I think it's more the MJ making the person paranoid, and the paranoia in turn causing the hallucinations.  When I think of a hallucinatory drug, I think of LSD...where the actual drug causes you to have hallucinations and visions.  I've never known of MJ on its own causing either of those.

[Superman]

I don't understand the debate, honestly. In light of what CF4L has posted in this thread, I don't think the NFL is nearly as draconian as they're made out to be in this area. If it's true that they don't test during the season, then even the pain management angle is mostly nullified.

 

To me, it's about decision making. If you can't pass a Combine test, then you make bad decisions, and my investment in you stands a greater chance of being undermined by your bad decision making. Case in point, Randy Gregory, who dropped to the second round because he popped hot at the Combine, and is now facing a 10 game suspension a year later. He makes bad decisions.

 

Doesn't mean a player/person should be blackballed because of one or even multiple indiscretions. But knowing how many failed tests it takes to be suspended, and then knowing that once you're in the program you're going to be tested more frequently, and you still don't stop? You either have a problem, or you don't care, and either way, I'm questioning my desire to have you on my team and pay you millions of dollars.

 

To the question about whether the NFL should test for it at all, I don't have a problem with a private entity collectively bargaining a drug policy with its workers, and then implementing and enforcing that policy. Whether or not marijuana is legal is moot, IMO. It's primarily a recreational drug that can affect a person's senses and judgment. NFL players are, for better or worse, public figures. Just saying 'we don't care what you do when you're not around' kind of ignores the significant financial investments that make the league possible, it ignores the sponsorships and TV deals that pay the players these exorbitant salaries, etc. 

 

And at the same time, if the NFL decided that marijuana testing is no longer important to them, I'd be fine with that. I just don't agree with the opinion that they should just abandon it because it's starting to be legalized and/or too many players are getting busted. 

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

I'd suspect there would be other substances laced in.  That and I think it's more the MJ making the person paranoid, and the paranoia in turn causing the hallucinations.  When I think of a hallucinatory drug, I think of LSD...where the actual drug causes you to have hallucinations and visions.  I've never known of MJ on its own causing either of those.

 

There are many reports of people having hallucinations from smoking marijuana. Like you said, it's impossible to know the reason, or what else they were on. But if it leads to paranoia, and paranoia leads to hallucinations, I wouldn't necessarily separate the two.

 

Marijuana is certainly a far cry from LSD, that's for sure.

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There are many reports of people having hallucinations from smoking marijuana. Like you said, it's impossible to know the reason, or what else they were on. But if it leads to paranoia, and paranoia leads to hallucinations, I wouldn't necessarily separate the two.

 

Marijuana is certainly a far cry from LSD, that's for sure.

 

personally I'd definitely separate them...it's kind of like the "is weed addictive" question.  On it's own, I don't think weed physically addictive...but someone with an addictive personality could become mentally addicted to it due to their addictive nature.  So then, does it get classified as an addictive drug or not?  personally I don't consider it addictive nor hallucinatory because the drug itself doesn't contain those properties nor cause those things in and of itself...but it can bring out those properties in the right type of individual.  

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

personally I'd definitely separate them...it's kind of like the "is weed addictive" question.  On it's own, I don't think weed physically addictive...but someone with an addictive personality could become mentally addicted to it due to their addictive nature.  So then, does it get classified as an addictive drug or not?  personally I don't consider it addictive nor hallucinatory because the drug itself doesn't contain those properties nor cause those things in and of itself...but it can bring out those properties in the right type of individual.  

 

There are studies that link marijuana use to inhibited dopamine receptors, which can lead to a dependence. There are other studies that basically suggest that 'an addictive personality' is essentially a byproduct of abnormal dopamine response. So is it addictive? I think the answer is still unknown.

 

But unlike other actions that lead to dopamine release (like consensual adult activities, for instance), it's possible, based on studies, that marijuana can lead to compromised dopamine release, which is a response similar to that from cocaine and heroin. Caffeine seems to have a simpler, less damaging response, while alcohol has a more complicated response (in that it affects dopamine, which is a 'feel good,' but also affects other chemicals which can cause depression, so alcoholics often get stuck in a loop of looking for the dopamine 'high' but skipping over it and only getting the depressive properties; like a time paradox).

 

http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2016/04/19/heavy-cannabis-use-affects-dopamine-release-seen-in-drug-addiction/

 

It seems that some people are more prone to dependence on marijuana, just like anything else. The question, IMO, is whether marijuana use actually leads to dependence. Based on that Columbia study, it seems that heavy use does. Still undetermined, though.

[Jason_]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There are studies that link marijuana use to inhibited dopamine receptors, which can lead to a dependence. There are other studies that basically suggest that 'an addictive personality' is essentially a byproduct of abnormal dopamine response. So is it addictive? I think the answer is still unknown.

 

But unlike other actions that lead to dopamine release (like consensual adult activities, for instance), it's possible, based on studies, that marijuana can lead to compromised dopamine release, which is a response similar to that from cocaine and heroin. Caffeine seems to have a simpler, less damaging response, while alcohol has a more complicated response (in that it affects dopamine, which is a 'feel good,' but also affects other chemicals which can cause depression, so alcoholics often get stuck in a loop of looking for the dopamine 'high' but skipping over it and only getting the depressive properties; like a time paradox).

 

http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2016/04/19/heavy-cannabis-use-affects-dopamine-release-seen-in-drug-addiction/

 

It seems that some people are more prone to dependence on marijuana, just like anything else. The question, IMO, is whether marijuana use actually leads to dependence. Based on that Columbia study, it seems that heavy use does. Still undetermined, though.

I'll preface by saying I don't know what the Columbia definition of "heavy use" is...with that said and without further information, I'd disagree with the Columbia study.  Either way, not really important and didn't even intend to get this far down the rabbit hole.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

I'll preface by saying I don't know what the Columbia definition of "heavy use" is...with that said and without further information, I'd disagree with the Columbia study.  Either way, not really important and didn't even intend to get this far down the rabbit hole.

 

Neither did I, but I should say that the bolded above is my interpretation of the Columbia study's results. So I think more specifically, you disagree with me.

 

But just since you mentioned it, "heavy use" means daily use for at least the month prior to the study. You might find it flawed since it states that the subjects were "dependent" prior to the study. 

 

Quote

 

New York, NY, April 14, 2016—In a recent study, researchers found evidence of a compromised dopamine system in heavy users of marijuana. Lower dopamine release was found in the striatum–a region of the brain that is involved in working memory, impulsive behavior, and attention. Previous studies have shown that addiction to other drugs of abuse, such as cocaine and heroin, have similar effects on dopamine release, but such evidence for cannabis was missing until now.

 

...

 

The study included 11 adults between the ages of 21 and 40 who were severely dependent on cannabis and 12 matched healthy controls. On average, the cannabis group started using at age 16, became dependent on cannabis by age 20, and have been dependent for the past 7 years. In the month prior to the study, nearly all users in this study smoked marijuana daily.

 

...

 

“We don’t know whether decreased dopamine was a preexisting condition or the result of heavy cannabis use,” said Dr. Abi-Dargham. “But the bottom line is that long-term, heavy cannabis use may impair the dopaminergic system, which could have a variety of negative effects on learning and behavior.”

 

Just wanted to offer that, to highlight that it's not the findings of the study, just my interpretation based on what I read. I should also state that I am by no means an expert in any of these areas. Relatively speaking, you could probably say I don't really know what I'm talking about.

[crazycolt1]

 I have heard for years that cannabis is not addictive. For something that is not addictive there seems to be facts that disprove that. If it wasn't addictive why cant even everyday people quit using it when they need to?  We have these pro players who have millions of dollars on the line but yet some of them wont quit. We have regular people who risk and lose their jobs everyday just to get high. We have people who are arrested every day for driving under the influence. Before anyone points a finger at me saying or thinking I don't know what I am talking about all I can say is your wrong. I started smoking weed over 40 years ago and was a daily smoker for over 25 years of those 40. The old saying a time and a place for everything holds true. I never mixed smoking weed with working and always stayed low profile with it. Last March I went to Colorado and did partake in the 3-20 festivities. I must admit I had a good time but I no longer have a livelihood depending on being straight either. I know people to this day that have pretty much smoked their whole life away and live  like hermits because of it. I have family members who their family members suffer from not having parents in the lives that can give them what parents are suppose to. They sell fake urine because people cant even clean themselves up enough to pass a drug screen. They are parents who collect their children's urine to use as a substitute. So for something that is not addictive I call horse dung. Sorry for the long winded comment but I just needed to put that out there.

[Jason_]

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

 I have heard for years that cannabis is not addictive. For something that is not addictive there seems to be facts that disprove that. If it wasn't addictive why cant even everyday people quit using it when they need to?  We have these pro players who have millions of dollars on the line but yet some of them wont quit. We have regular people who risk and lose their jobs everyday just to get high. We have people who are arrested every day for driving under the influence. Before anyone points a finger at me saying or thinking I don't know what I am talking about all I can say is your wrong. I started smoking weed over 40 years ago and was a daily smoker for over 25 years of those 40. The old saying a time and a place for everything holds true. I never mixed smoking weed with working and always stayed low profile with it. Last March I went to Colorado and did partake in the 3-20 festivities. I must admit I had a good time but I no longer have a livelihood depending on being straight either. I know people to this day that have pretty much smoked their whole life away and live  like hermits because of it. I have family members who their family members suffer from not having parents in the lives that can give them what parents are suppose to. They sell fake urine because people cant even clean themselves up enough to pass a drug screen. They are parents who collect their children's urine to use as a substitute. So for something that is not addictive I call horse dung. Sorry for the long winded comment but I just needed to put that out there.

 

As I said...people with addictive personalities can become mentally addicted...but I don't believe it to be physically addictive like tobacco is.  People with addictive personalities can get addicted to anything...robitussin, nasal spray, any type of food or just good in general, aspirin, cough drops...anything.

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

As I said...people with addictive personalities can become mentally addicted...but I don't believe it to be physically addictive like tobacco is.  People with addictive personalities can get addicted to anything...robitussin, nasal spray, any type of food or just good in general, aspirin, cough drops...anything.

While I am sure no expert in the scientific study of cannabis there have been study's that show there is a change in the body's chemicals that shows cannabis is more than mentally addictive. My personal experience of being a long time user is it takes a lot of will power not to smoke. Even at my age fighting the mind set of smoking is very hard. Smoking and kicking back listening to classic rock is something I still enjoy very much and do from time to time. But alias, I have grandkids and great grandkids that I have to keep in mind. While I have never hidden anything I have done in the past it's tough to balance the advice to give.

[DougDew]

This isn't rocket science.  Medical science has categorized certain painkillers as being addictive, as well as being mind altering to some degree.

 

That's why lawmakers have made them illegal to be purchased without a prescription, and their dispensation controlled.  Why people think that an employer would not have a policy against it...just because employees wants to use it for recreational purposes..i.e. misuse it....is simply wishful thinking.

 

If I were an employer, I would seriously think about firing an employee who wanted the policy changed simply to make it easier for him to get stoned.  Its a Diva level of arrogance.

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

13 hours ago, IndyD4U said:

Even if marijuana is legalized nationwide that doesn't mean that the NFL will permit it. I cannot see an instance where the NFL doesn't stop testing for marijuana, legal or not.

 

I can where they will continue to alter the policy for MJ to allow more chances and reduce punishments, but there will always be some accountability involved on the players part.  In some fashion in some way, there likely always will be.

[BOTT]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This isn't rocket science.  Medical science has categorized certain painkillers as being addictive, as well as being mind altering to some degree.

 

That's why lawmakers have made them illegal to be purchased without a prescription, and their dispensation controlled.  Why people think that an employer would not have a policy against it...just because the employee wants to use it for recreational purposes..i.e. misuse it....is simply wishful thinking.

 

This just in....states are beginning to legalize it.  Let's not compare weed to opiates.

 

and many employers don't test for it. 

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This isn't rocket science.  Medical science has categorized certain painkillers as being addictive, as well as being mind altering to some degree.

 

That's why lawmakers have made them illegal to be purchased without a prescription, and its dispensation controlled.  Why people think that an employer would not have a policy against it...just because the employee wants to use it for recreational purposes..i.e. misuse it....is simply wishful thinking.

 

My question is how many of these medical scientist work for pharmaceutical companies? There is so many people who have a hand in the money pie how much of these studies are slanted?

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, BOTT said:

This just in....states are beginning to legalize it.  Let's not compare weed to opiates.

 

and many employers don't test for it. 

You always have very short things to say, and with such a tone that implies you think you're smart.   But in this case, your point is simply irrelevant to the issue.

 

 

 

 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

16 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

As I said...people with addictive personalities can become mentally addicted...but I don't believe it to be physically addictive like tobacco is.  People with addictive personalities can get addicted to anything...robitussin, nasal spray, any type of food or just good in general, aspirin, cough drops...anything.

So true. I quit easily. 

[Superman]

18 hours ago, BOTT said:

This just in....states are beginning to legalize it.  Let's not compare weed to opiates.

 

and many employers don't test for it. 

 

Most employers don't test for it. But if yours does...

[BOTT]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Most employers don't test for it. But if yours does...

Of course. But he stated why wouldn't employers test for it....as though it was unthinkable.

[BOTT]

18 hours ago, DougDew said:

You always have very short things to say, and with such a tone that implies you think you're smart.   But in this case, your point is simply irrelevant to the issue.

 

 

 

 

I get to the point and don't waste time with nicities.  If you wanna read something into that, oh well.

[Clem-Dog]

On 7/26/2016 at 8:11 PM, DougDew said:

You can't be a serious athlete and a serious smoker of weed.  All multi-billion dollar industries that rely upon their athletes being in top condition should have a serious policy against it.  Its that simple.

Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt and Kevin Durant disagree, and so do their sponsors.  lol. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

Of course. But he stated why wouldn't employers test for it....as though it was unthinkable.

 

Understood. Just relating to NFL players getting suspended, it's hard for me to feel sorry for them when this happens, even though most employers don't care. The NFL does, at least for now.

[BOTT]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Understood. Just relating to NFL players getting suspended, it's hard for me to feel sorry for them when this happens, even though most employers don't care. The NFL does, at least for now.

Yeah, I don't really feel sorry for them, but I still don't like to see careers potentially derailed due to something so minor. There just seems to be a point to it all. The NFL is essentially letting these guys smoke weed 11 months out of the year so what is letting them smoke 12 going to hurt?

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

Old owners thoughts are a drawback to complete removal of it from the list.  One unnamed NFL Owner-

 

“The short answer is no,” one NFL owner said. “At least, not soon. No way. Most owners view marijuana as a destructive drug. Many of us are behind the times when it comes to marijuana.”

 

In addition, with current rules they have basically said to players, 'I'm paying you (multi) millions of dollars to play.  We let you smoke for almost 11 months out of the year untested.  And there are some that can't/won't give it up in OTA's and Spring training?  Just stop for a month or so while prepping for the season?  Maybe they deserve punishment for failing the Perspective and I.Q. test.'

 

I estimate between 700 to 1000 NFL players partake in using MJ at least 2-3 times a week or more.  Out of those how many are caught?   The question becomes why can so many get away with it and be clean when needed, but there are a tiny few who can't/won't?  Why would any old owner let any of those tiny few failing players skate when the majority of others have no issues?

 

While Ravens may have had injury, contract/cap issues in regards to letting Eugene Monroe go after all trade talks stalled, the cold distance between team/player says there may have been more; IE: Monroe's public campaigning for MJ use.

 

**Monroe had surgery to repair a torn labrum (shoulder) this offseason, and used the time off to become the first active NFL player to openly campaign for the use of medical marijuana. The Ravens did not rally behind the cause.**

///  “I promise you, he does not speak for the organization,” Head Coach John Harbaugh said this offseason.

Monroe did not participate in Organized Team Activities (OTAs) and was held out of minicamp after being cleared to play. The Ravens didn’t want to risk another injury that could jeopardize trade discussions.   ///

 

 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

20 hours ago, Clem-Dog said:

Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt and Kevin Durant disagree, and so do their sponsors.  lol. 

They're all the best at their positions too lol. Except kd, he's  a nancy now.

[crazycolt1]

20 hours ago, BOTT said:

Yeah, I don't really feel sorry for them, but I still don't like to see careers potentially derailed due to something so minor. There just seems to be a point to it all. The NFL is essentially letting these guys smoke weed 11 months out of the year so what is letting them smoke 12 going to hurt?

 

It may seem minor to you but till the laws are changed it is a federal offense for possessing over a certain amount. Even in those states that have legalized like Colorado, it is still a federal offense to have cannabis on you in any federal owned or run land. For any NFL player who is not smart enough to know how to use the system they have derailed their own careers. The NFL has just about done everything they can do legally to turn a blind eye. If a player loses any time and derails their career they are dumber than a box of rocks under the rules set.

[BOTT]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

It may seem minor to you but till the laws are changed it is a federal offense for possessing over a certain amount. Even in those states that have legalized like Colorado, it is still a federal offense to have cannabis on you in any federal owned or run land. For any NFL player who is not smart enough to know how to use the system they have derailed their own careers. The NFL has just about done everything they can do legally to turn a blind eye. If a player loses any time and derails their career they are dumber than a box of rocks under the rules set.

But me back on ignore please

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, BOTT said:

But me back on ignore please

Sorry I hurt your feelings.

[BOTT]

40 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Sorry I hurt your feelings.

Yes, you hurt my feeling by stating marijuana is in fact illegal in most states and that one must abide by their employees drug policy.

 

Boy Crazy, you keep hitting them out of the park.....

[crazycolt1]

11 hours ago, BOTT said:

Yes, you hurt my feeling by stating marijuana is in fact illegal in most states and that one must abide by their employees drug policy.

 

Boy Crazy, you keep hitting them out of the park.....

If that is what you took out of my comment I am sorry to inform you that was not what I stated. Maybe if you re read it you would have a better understanding of the content.

[dgambill]

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 10:08 PM, crazycolt1 said:

My question is how many of these medical scientist work for pharmaceutical companies? There is so many people who have a hand in the money pie how much of these studies are slanted?

Very true...indeed its almost hard to believe almost any study now days because someone on one side or the other is trying to support their donors or draw their own preconceived conclusion. Fact is their is huge money in legalizing marijuana just as their is huge money in drug companies selling their medications as well. There is tons of money being financed to prove head traumas are the cause of CTE and money from the NFL and other agencies to disprove it. I can find just about a study on anything to counter another study...it's hard not to believe that most are biased in some way where they have a hypothesis they are trying to prove rather than letting the evidence lead them to a hypothesis. So much money on both sides of so many different studies. Heck you have so many people that have created jobs and whole industries and livelihoods off of continuing some theories and movements. Whether we are talking CTE, Drugs, Global Warming, Gun Violence, heck even the effects of video games there are literally thousands of people on both sides making millions of dollars to prove their side is right and even if the truth was undeniable they would continue their cause because they can't risk the fact that their is too much money at stake to lose.

 

All in all as it comes to marijuana I believe that the plant has a purpose. I do believe there can be some healing properties that if used right under the proper supervision of a doctor it could be good if transformed into a medicinal form. However, I'm not a proponent of making it legal for just anyone to use and I don't think smoking it is a healthy choice. Weed is filterless....burns hotter...you take it deep in your lungs and hold it in....it has carcinogens and tar just like cigarettes so I don't see how it can be safe for your respiratory system. Add that to the effects on the brain of young people and developing babies and the concerns of long term issues and links to schizophrenia and paranoia etc I don't think this is something that should be promoted as a safe drug. As far as the NFL goes I don't really care if they test for it (MLB doesn't in the majors just the minors) so I can't say I wouldn't watch the games if they didn't but as a society I don't think its something that should be promoted. Anyways...I do think as part of ongoing negotiations with the league I think at some point the league will stop testing for it....and it will only suspend if players get arrested but for now if the league want to not have their players under the effects...especially worried that playing a game under the effects of weed would be VERY dangerous then I don't see it as unreasonable to keep the rules as they are.  

[dgambill]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 7:02 PM, BOTT said:

Yeah, I don't really feel sorry for them, but I still don't like to see careers potentially derailed due to something so minor. There just seems to be a point to it all. The NFL is essentially letting these guys smoke weed 11 months out of the year so what is letting them smoke 12 going to hurt?

 

I think the fact that many of the side effects of marijuana not only could be very very dangerous on a football field but also the fact that if a player suffered a severe reaction during a football game it would be very very bad publicity, dangerous to the player, and dangerous to anyone around him or in the stadium potentially. I understand that psychotic episodes are rare but to have someone suffer from one on the field because they were to smoke before a game or to lessen their pain would be a horrible PR problem for the league and also endanger the lives of the NFLs employees. The public opinion around weed is certainly softening so I wouldn't be surprised for the rules to change especially by the next collective bargaining but I think the NFL has a legit reason to want make sure its employees are of sound mind when they are playing on Sunday.

[DougDew]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 6:12 PM, Clem-Dog said:

Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt and Kevin Durant disagree, and so do their sponsors.  lol. 

Let them all disagree, they'd all be wrong.

 

'cuz they would be better if they didn't smoke weed.  Especially as they get older.

 

Sponsors want as much revenue as they can get.  They know that hipsters who cherish getting stoned as one of their priorities in life spend their money really easily on stupid things.  Sponsors probably encourage it.

[BOTT]

50 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I think the fact that many of the side effects of marijuana not only could be very very dangerous on a football field but also the fact that if a player suffered a severe reaction during a football game it would be very very bad publicity, dangerous to the player, and dangerous to anyone around him or in the stadium potentially. I understand that psychotic episodes are rare but to have someone suffer from one on the field because they were to smoke before a game or to lessen their pain would be a horrible PR problem for the league and also endanger the lives of the NFLs employees. The public opinion around weed is certainly softening so I wouldn't be surprised for the rules to change especially by the next collective bargaining but I think the NFL has a legit reason to want make sure its employees are of sound mind when they are playing on Sunday.

I can't fathom they are worried about the side effects/bad reaction of weed, yet they have no concerns about the opiates the hand out regularly.

 

plus, your concerns are a mute point....the NFL only tests for weed during the off season.

[Clem-Dog]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Let them all disagree, they'd all be wrong.

 

'cuz they would be better if they didn't smoke weed.  Especially as they get older.

 

Sponsors want as much revenue as they can get.  They know that hipsters who cherish getting stoned as one of their priorities in life spend their money really easily on stupid things.  Sponsors probably encourage it.

 

How could Phelps or Bolt possibly be any better?  They are the fastest humans to ever run/swim on earth's surface.    

 

I don't support or oppose marijuana usage, as it should be a personal choice.

 

As far as weed being correlated with hipsters, that was 30-40 ago, unless rappers are the new hippies.

[crazycolt1]

37 minutes ago, Clem-Dog said:

 

How could Phelps or Bolt possibly be any better?  They are the fastest humans to ever run/swim on earth's surface.    

 

I don't support or oppose marijuana usage, as it should be a personal choice.

 

As far as weed being correlated with hipsters, that was 30-40 ago, unless rappers are the new hippies.

Smoking cannabis has been going on way before 30 or 40 years ago. Smoking cannabis is over 7,000 years old. The oldest found stash of smoking cannabis dates back 2.700 years.

[BOTT]

9 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

If that is what you took out of my comment I am sorry to inform you that was not what I stated. Maybe if you re read it you would have a better understanding of the content.

Yeah, that's pretty much what you stated.  And players are stupid if they get caught under the lax rules. Thank you Capt Obvious.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

51 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Smoking cannabis has been going on way before 30 or 40 years ago. Smoking cannabis is over 7,000 years old. The oldest found stash of smoking cannabis dates back 2.700 years.

 

51 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Smoking cannabis has been going on way before 30 or 40 years ago. Smoking cannabis is over 7,000 years old. The oldest found stash of smoking cannabis dates back 2.700 years.

Preach it Brother!

[TheRustonRifle#7]

45 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Yeah, that's pretty much what you stated.  And players are stupid if they get caught under the lax rules. Thank you Capt Obvious.

 

45 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Yeah, that's pretty much what you stated.  And players are stupid if they get caught under the lax rules. Thank you Capt Obvious.

You have been hurt obviously...please refrain from taking said "hurt" out on others????? J/K...but really.....

[Clem-Dog]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Smoking cannabis has been going on way before 30 or 40 years ago. Smoking cannabis is over 7,000 years old. The oldest found stash of smoking cannabis dates back 2.700 years.

 

Did I say smoking cannabis was discovered 30-40 years ago or are you saying cavemen were hippies?  Way to twist it.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

3 minutes ago, Clem-Dog said:

 

Did I say smoking cannabis was discovered 30-40 years ago or are you saying cavemen were hippies?  Way to twist it.

 

3 minutes ago, Clem-Dog said:

 

Did I say smoking cannabis was discovered 30-40 years ago or are you saying cavemen were hippies?  Way to twist it.

Cavemen were way into herb as their cave drawings most certainly elude to it?????????